Clamping ban bill very bad indeed: keeper responsibility for PPC invoices

bargepole

It's not too surprising that these laws are being proposed, given the power of the landowners and parking companies' lobbying.

What is surprising, is how badly drafted this bill is. They need to amend it, and include the following provisions:

1) Clear rules on signage - what size, shape and wording it must have.
2) Scale of charges - ideally, these should not exceed the sums charged by the relevant local authority, and offer a similar discount for early settlement.
3) Independent Appeals Process - all PPCs to pay an annual levy to PATAS based on number of tickets issued, and drivers to be able to appeal tickets in the same way they can with Council ones.

anewman

I understand most court cases are not won against PPC's on registered keeper liability/being able to identify who was driving alone. Are there any examples of cases where who was driving is not disputed but the contractual penalty clause and amount needing to be representative of actual losses are the issues raised and still winning?

Without a completely independent appeals process and substantial penalties for flouting rules (issuing tickets willy nilly), this is all going to go down hill very quickly with the law in its current state. I can see what business all the criminal clampers are going to move straight into.

patman99

So, if I were to register my car to a non-existent relative then the PPCs would not be able to ever get me.

yellowbenzene

this equates to hundreds of years' worth of contract law being changed at a single stroke - someone who has never seen a PPC sign, never parked in a PPC controlled car park, and not consented to any "contract" is now liable to pay a PPC an arbitrary sum?

You surely can't transfer liability to an unsuspecting third party like this.

anewman

patman99 wrote: »

So, if I were to register my car to a non-existent relative then the PPCs would not be able to ever get me.

Sounds like a plan, I have never heard of the DVLA issuing fines for incorrect vehicle registration details despite dire warnings.

esmerobbo

We could all just have a Russian cousin who was driving, who just so happens to have gone home!;):p

esmerobbo

E mail sent to my MP and Lynne Featherstone!

taffy056

This will not go through in it's current form, can you imagine 750k small claims going through each year? The whole system would collapse, really the ppc scum will not gain through this, a contract must be fair a penalty of £100 is not a fair reflection of loss no matter which car park it is!

Coupon-mad

esmerobbo wrote: »

E mail sent to my MP and Lynne Featherstone!

Same here. Lynne Featherstone's contact form:

http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/contact

We need to calmly explain the mistake the government would be making in allowing schedule 4 to remain in this Bill in any form. One person cannot be responsible for another person's alleged breach of contract on a private company's say-so, it's a shocking error! It would be wrong even if the amount being claimed was a tenner - but even worse when they can make it up as they go along.

What's to stop them just issuing letters to any random registered keepers? And even if the car was parked where they allege how can they pin their extortion on an innocent person who wasn't even there?

Words fail me (almost). But I managed to string some together for Lynne Featherstone and copied in my own MP as well.





P.S. A simple analogy:

I rent a flat. I have some consumables delivered to that flat but I never pay for them. Can the company pursue the landlord (flat owner) for the money I might owe?! Of course not, they have to know who the INDIVIDUAL person is who has allegedly breached their contract!

pgl0897

esmerobbo wrote: »

E mail sent to my MP and Lynne Featherstone!

let's get Featherstone's email addy up then. Get her offices inbox filled with incredulous outrage :T